11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: a systematic review of reviews

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Policymakers in many countries promote collaboration between health care organizations and other sectors as a route to improving population health. Local collaborations have been developed for decades. Yet little is known about the impact of cross-sector collaboration on health and health equity.

          Methods

          We carried out a systematic review of reviews to synthesize evidence on the health impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations, and to understand the factors affecting how these partnerships functioned. We searched four databases and included 36 studies (reviews) in our review. We extracted data from these studies and used Nvivo 12 to help categorize the data. We assessed risk of bias in the studies using standardized tools. We used a narrative approach to synthesizing and reporting the data.

          Results

          The 36 studies we reviewed included evidence on varying forms of collaboration in diverse contexts. Some studies included data on collaborations with broad population health goals, such as preventing disease and reducing health inequalities. Others focused on collaborations with a narrower focus, such as better integration between health care and social services. Overall, there is little convincing evidence to suggest that collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations improves health outcomes. Evidence of impact on health services is mixed. And evidence of impact on resource use and spending are limited and mixed. Despite this, many studies report on factors associated with better or worse collaboration. We grouped these into five domains: motivation and purpose, relationships and cultures, resources and capabilities, governance and leadership, and external factors. But data linking factors in these domains to collaboration outcomes is sparse.

          Conclusions

          In theory, collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations might contribute to better population health. But we know little about which kinds of collaborations work, for whom, and in what contexts. The benefits of collaboration may be hard to deliver, hard to measure, and overestimated by policymakers. Ultimately, local collaborations should be understood within their macro-level political and economic context, and as one component within a wider system of factors and interventions interacting to shape population health.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10630-1.

          Related collections

          Most cited references188

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

          The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.

            To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              The Social Determinants of Health: It's Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Hugh.Alderwick@health.org.uk
                Andrew.Hutchings@lshtm.ac.uk
                Adam.Briggs@health.org.uk
                Nicholas.Mays@lshtm.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                19 April 2021
                19 April 2021
                2021
                : 21
                : 753
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.453604.0, ISNI 0000 0004 1756 7003, Health Foundation, 8 Salisbury Square, ; London, EC4Y 8AP UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.8991.9, ISNI 0000 0004 0425 469X, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, ; 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH UK
                [3 ]GRID grid.7372.1, ISNI 0000 0000 8809 1613, University of Warwick, ; Coventry, CV4 7AL UK
                Article
                10630
                10.1186/s12889-021-10630-1
                8054696
                33874927
                2c471979-545d-4ee9-82a7-ba2887de7989
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 11 November 2020
                : 11 March 2021
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Public health
                inter-organizational collaboration,multisector partnerships,systematic review,health policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article